From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16953 invoked by alias); 26 Sep 2009 19:18:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 16944 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Sep 2009 19:18:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e24smtp05.br.ibm.com (HELO e24smtp05.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.26) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:18:44 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (mailhub1.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.109]) by e24smtp05.br.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n8QJEhiY027258 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:14:43 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n8QJJLM11515722 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:19:21 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n8QJIeRX021446 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:18:41 -0300 Received: from miki.localnet ([9.8.6.186]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n8QJIe4K021443 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:18:40 -0300 From: =?iso-8859-1?q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Wording of "catch syscall " warning Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:18:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.1 (Linux/2.6.30.4; KDE/4.3.1; i686; ; ) Cc: Doug Evans , tromey@redhat.com References: <20090925003107.87780843AC@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> <200909251639.32714.sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200909261618.38215.sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00839.txt.bz2 Hi Doug, On Friday 25 September 2009, Doug Evans wrote: > It wasn't clear that this addressed my concerns when !HAVE_LIBEXPAT so > I applied the patch and gave it a spin. [I am assuming that you are talking about our little discussion on IRC, abo= ut=20 fix the testsuite so that it doesn't fail when the user doesn't have=20 libexpat.] You are right, this patch does not address your concerns about !HAVE_LIBEXP= AT,=20 mainly because we discussed that on IRC _after_ I sent this patch :-). I w= ill=20 resubmit another version that addresses this issue as well. > Two nits: > I still see a warning at start-up, and > When I do "catch syscall" I still get > warning: The number '20' does not represent a known syscall. > for every invocation. [Did I misunderstand? Or did we want this > warning, which is issued in breakpoint.c, to only happen once if > !HAVE_LIBEXPAT.] That's because you took the wrong version of the patch :-). Please, take a= =20 look at my other message following this one. http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00826.html --=20 S=E9rgio Durigan J=FAnior Linux on Power Toolchain - Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - LTC IBM Brazil